Local Voices: Preparing for Disaster — How our voting sends the wrong message

By Chad McGuire

Sunday

Jan 25, 2015 at 2:01 AM

Editor's Note: This is the third in a four-part series on climate change written by UMass Dartmouth associate professor Chad J. McGuire. Part 1 (Jan. 4) focused on sea-level rise and flood insurance. Part 2 looked at public and private costs of protecting the environment (Jan. 11). Part 3 (today) discusses environmental policy in relation to the voting public. Part 4 explores the role of economics in environmental protection. Look for them in this space over the coming weeks.

A strong democracy, many believe, is built on the power of the vote. A voting public holds government accountable for its actions, or inaction as the case may be. Elected officials who fail to be good stewards of the public trust will soon find themselves voted out of office. Of course this ideal presumes that we, the voting public, understand the actions of our elected officials. In some cases, this may be absolutely true. Politicians found taking bribes in exchange for votes are widely understood to have violated the public’s trust. But other cases are less clear. For example, do politicians violate the public trust if they follow voting preferences that, ultimately, harm the public good? This is a key question when thinking about government disaster preparedness in an era of climate change. What follows is an attempt to provide context in understanding how voting patterns can affect the ability of government to prepare for future harm.

Many of the coastal regions of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts are particularly vulnerable to the effects of sea level rise. Communities exist in low-lying seaside areas just a few feet above current sea level. As seas rise, the potential for flooding and storm damage increases. In addition, these areas are subject to intense storms such as hurricanes and nor’easters. If our oceans continue to rise in the future, then the potential for disaster will only increase. It therefore makes sense to spend time today preparing for future harm.

Not only does it make logical sense to prepare for future harm, it also makes financial sense. Recent studies have shown that, on average, every dollar spent on disaster preparedness yields $15 worth of future damage reduction. Said another way, a dollar of prevention today results in $15 of benefits tomorrow. The same cannot be said of disaster relief spending. Most studies have actually shown relief spending has no significant impact on future damage: preparedness spending lowers future damage while relief spending does not. Thus there is clear advantage, logically and financially, in the ounce of prevention philosophy. Disaster preparedness makes a lot of sense, particularly when comparing it against disaster relief spending.

Unfortunately, actual government spending does not favor preparedness spending over relief spending. From 1985 to 2004, the average damage caused by natural disasters events in the U.S. was $16.5 billion per year (in 2008 dollars). In that same timeframe, the federal government appropriated an average of $3.05 billion on disaster relief payments and only $195 million on disaster preparedness per year (again in 2008 dollars). Said another way, for every dollar the federal government spent on disaster preparedness, it spent $15.64 on disaster relief. And over the immediate last decade, disaster relief spending has increased dramatically. Consider Hurricane Sandy in 2012 alone. Approximately $17 billion and counting has been allocated from the National Flood Insurance Program, with approximately another $50 billion in federal disaster relief — for one event. Cumulatively, over $670 billion of taxpayer money has been paid out nationally over the last decade for disaster relief.

Why would our elected officials spend so little money on preparing for disasters when it yields such a high return on investment? A large part of the answer appears to be in the voting patterns of the public. Simply put, the voting public rewards disaster relief with votes, but it does not reward disaster preparedness with votes. Current evidence identifies the phenomenon, but fails to explain it. There are plausible reasons we can consider. For example, it is likely hard for the voting public to identify how money spent preparing for a disaster has prevented an actual disaster from occurring, or limited the amount of damage. We only see what is before us and it is hard to imagine what might have been.

Another plausible reason for preferring disaster relief spending to preparedness spending is that relief money goes directly to the members of the voting public. If you or I are affected by a hurricane and we receive public funds, then we can tangibly identify the benefit of that action: money is in our hands. The connection between the harm and the relief is direct for us because we experienced the harm, and then also experienced the relief. In addition, the payments made in disaster relief are provided directly to the individual voting member, whereas funds to prepare for disasters are dispersed and not tangible to a single person: No one individual can capture the money spent in preparing for disaster.

There are other potential reasons the voting public may reward relief spending. But the fact is, politicians are rewarded with votes for being shortsighted, thinking about the here and now, rather than planning for the future. Going back to the original question, is this kind of shortsighted response by politicians a violation of the public trust? Or are we, the voting public, responsible because of how we vote? The answer to this question is important because it likely will play a significant role in how we deal with the uncertainty brought on by a changing climate. We may choose to plan. We may choose to respond. We may do both, but the evidence is clear: Planning provides a lot more bang for the buck.

I would like to propose that we, the voting public, bear an important responsibility when it comes to our role in providing for the public good. Evidence is clear that in our system of government, elected officials are receptive to how we vote. If we choose to understand and prioritize the benefits of preparing for disaster, it is likely our elected officials will follow our lead. But if we fail to realize the benefits of preparing, then it is more likely politicians will respond to those signals, throwing money at a problem that is not being solved.

It is not unprecedented for the public to support investments today for benefits tomorrow. Public education is a prime example (where the return on investment is about half of the 15:1 ratio identified above for disaster planning). Investing for retirement is another example. There is no guarantee our investments in education or retirement will be fruitful (we could die before we retire). But we do it as a society because we agree the potential rewards are worth the investment made today. Maybe it is time we see investing for natural disasters in the same way. All evidence suggests our politicians are listening: We just need to be clear in our message.

Chad J. McGuire is associate professor of Environmental Policy and chairman, Department of Public Policy, University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth.

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.